• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites

Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
625
There seems to be a truism that abolishing captialism will lead to be end of racism. But if we had a system of worker co-ops or were property is communally owned, can't white people still oppress (inadvertently or not) black people by being the majority?
 
Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites?

In theory, yes. In theory a system that ensures equality would end racism. In theory in such a system people would be incentivised to cooperate instead of compete, and in theory people would then not feel they are in competition with other ethnic groups, and therefore not feel the need to treat them any differently than anyone else. In theory.

Did I say "in theory" enough? In theory?

There are obviously a few obstacles when it comes to actually implimenting politcal theories into practice...
 
By social activists online, just google "capitalism, racism". I guess truism may not be the right word. "Assumption" is more like it.

By all social activists online? Some? A few?

But adherents to an ideology claiming that their ideology will cure the world of its ills is not exactly unheard of. It's actually quite common. I have seen white supremacists claim that ethnostates will cure racism as well.
 
By social activists online, just google "capitalism, racism". I guess truism may not be the right word. "Assumption" is more like it.

"Hey, look: found someone with some crazy opinion!" is not the same as "hey, all people who share this arbitrary characteristic with this person must share this crazy opinion."
 
There seems to be a truism that abolishing captialism will lead to be end of racism. But if we had a system of worker co-ops or were property is communally owned, can't white people still oppress (inadvertently or not) black people by being the majority?

Where and by whom?
 
By all social activists online? Some? A few?

But adherents to an ideology claiming that their ideology will cure the world of its ills is not exactly unheard of. It's actually quite common. I have seen white supremacists claim that ethnostates will cure racism as well.

Or there may be other solutions that finally end the problem of racism....
 
"Hey, look: found someone with some crazy opinion!" is not the same as "hey, all people who share this arbitrary characteristic with this person must share this crazy opinion."

It's not "someone". Just type in "capitalism and racism" and you'll see have common it is claimed. I don't need to spoon feed people.
 
Historically, people attempting a revolution frequently attempt to appeal to whatever groups are currently being oppressed, neglected, disaffected, or just not prospering under the current system. Of course socialists and communists have made sales pitches to ethnic minorities. Some of them possibly in good faith, others not so much.
 
No one ever said that. In fact I'm yet to see anyone trying to link racism ro capitalism.

Black Lives Matter has:

People submitting to the mob 'supporting radical Marxist group'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TJpqSZ8ACc

Note: I realize this is a right-wing news outlet and therefore the propositions would need verification. It is worth noting, however, that if an attack is coming from the extreme left, the right-wing media would be the last to self censor.
 
Well.

Capitalism is an economic system. It's based on two simple ideas: Private property, and the property owner's right to profit from the use of their property. In principle, the property owner is incentivized to maximize profit from their property, without regard for the race, class, gender, etc. of the other parties involved in the transaciton. If it pay, it plays.

But in practice, this doesn't always happen. The big issue is that people will trade profits for happiness. This is the whole point of profits, really. So if I don't like you for some stupid reason, I might choose not to do business with you. I'd give up some of my profits for the happiness of not having to deal with you.

So capitalism as such isn't really going to have an effect on racism, or any other ism.

Communism, on the other hand, is also an economic system. It's also based on two simple ideas: Communal property, and communal profit from the use of the property. In principle, an equitable community, that accepted community members without regard for race, etc., would share communal profits equally to all members.

But is this what actually happens? I guess one approach to this question would be to look at kibbutzes and other small-scale, opt-in communes. Do such communes tend (not) to show a racial bias when accepting new members? Do they form around groups that are already ethnically bonded, and therefore reluctant to embrace other ethnicities in their commune? After they're formed, do the minority members tend (not) to get treated equally in commune affairs?

Another approach might be to look at the large-scale attempts to implement communism. This becomes a question of political systems, not just economic systems. There's also the problem that large-scale attempts like the Soviet Union are not actually communism, according to some.

My understanding of the Soviet attempt is that the answer is mixed: On the one hand, the totalitarian regime was in a position to mandate and enforce equitable treatment in the commune, to a much greater degree than liberal democracies do. On the other hand, the totalitarian state was in a position to conduct massive ethnic cleansing operations. But does this actually tell us anything about communism? Maybe not.
 
But in practice, this doesn't always happen. The big issue is that people will trade profits for happiness. This is the whole point of profits, really. So if I don't like you for some stupid reason, I might choose not to do business with you. I'd give up some of my profits for the happiness of not having to deal with you.

So capitalism as such isn't really going to have an effect on racism, or any other ism.

I disagree. Capitalism will not prevent racism, but that doesn't mean it won't have any effect on it. The profit motive provides an incentive to not discriminate against people on a superficial basis such as race. Some people may do so anyways, but they will pay an economic price for doing so. And some people who would like to racially discriminate in the absence of any cost will choose not to when faced with having to pay that cost. So that's an effect on racism, and a positive effect at that. Certain government market interventions (such as minimum wage and rent control) serve to reduce or eliminate this economic price of racial discrimination.
 
Of there is absolutely nothing preventing Socialists or Communists from enacting racist policies. In fact, many of the major socialist countries in recent history have all but embraced national, racial or ethnic chauvinism and nationalism while maintaining that they are against it.

The Soviet Union and its client states are great examples.

After Lenin died The Soviet Union progressively embraced Russian nationalism at the same time as it become far less socially liberal and tolerant. Even though the other member states were notionally equal to the Russian one, they effectively became little more than provinces directly ruled from Moscow and whose people were to emulate the Russians as far as feasible. Russian culture and language was emphasized often to the exclusion of the native language and culture, especially in the major cities and towns and amongst the elite.

Perhaps the most direct proof against the idea that "Socialism is an antidote to racism" is the fact that, despite Jew being overrepresented in the early Communist party and generally supported the Communists during the civil war, in large part due to the intense discrimination and persecution they faced under the Russian Empire and the "Whites", Stalin would eventually institute antisemitic policies and rhetoric that never really went away.

In the end, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, it was not uncommon for Communists and Russian ultra-nationalists or outright fascist to stand together.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Capitalism will not prevent racism, but that doesn't mean it won't have any effect on it. The profit motive provides an incentive to not discriminate against people on a superficial basis such as race. Some people may do so anyways, but they will pay an economic price for doing so. And some people who would like to racially discriminate in the absence of any cost will choose not to when faced with having to pay that cost. So that's an effect on racism, and a positive effect at that. Certain government market interventions (such as minimum wage and rent control) serve to reduce or eliminate this economic price of racial discrimination.

Good point. I posted before I'd finished thinking it through.

So under capitalism, personal greed serves as a counterbalance to personal bigotry.

What counterbalance does communism provide? To me it seems the counterbalance must be ideological. The more you believe in communal equality, the less likely you are to discriminate against your fellow commune members out of ethnic bigotry. This suggests that small-scale, opt-in communes would do pretty well for their minority members, since everyone involved is a true believer that chose this arrangement. On a large scale, when you have to impose a social order on people who don't necessarily believe in it, it might not work out so well.

Anyway, this is back to my original suggestion: Look at how kibbutzes and other small-scale communes have behaved.

There were communist-style arrangements in some medieval communities. But I bet those were already ethnically segregated and indulged in the entire rainbow of human bigotry. If a Fleming shows up to a Belgian commune, will he be welcomed with open arms as an equal member entitled to an equal share?

What has been the attitude of Israeli kibbutzim to the gentiles among them?

Anyway, my guess is that communes offer just as much scope for racism as any other social system. As Orwell observed, even in ideologically equitable systems, some always end up being more equal than others.
 
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the rest of us? It's a good question after all.
Due to its vague, arbitrary, and often seemingly contradictory, meanings, I don't use the term very much.
I was hoping one of the posters who use it in the majority of their postings might offer a definition.
The premise of the thread seems to be questioning whether or not a system that prioritizes equality of outcome more than the one we currently have might eliminate racism.

That only groks if racism is defined as uneven economic outcomes.

If racism is simply considering someone else inferior due to conditions of their ancestry, I don't see how that changes much with greater equality in the distribution of wealth.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Capitalism will not prevent racism, but that doesn't mean it won't have any effect on it. The profit motive provides an incentive to not discriminate against people on a superficial basis such as race. Some people may do so anyways, but they will pay an economic price for doing so. And some people who would like to racially discriminate in the absence of any cost will choose not to when faced with having to pay that cost. So that's an effect on racism, and a positive effect at that. Certain government market interventions (such as minimum wage and rent control) serve to reduce or eliminate this economic price of racial discrimination.

Only if one defines "discriminating against" as "being unwilling to take their money"
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom